Dickonians vs. Randites

By Bill Maher

It has become clear that the struggle for the Republican Party is much more complicated than just establishment players against Teabagging insurgents. First, I give you Rand Paul:

"We went into Libya and we got rid of that terrible Qaddafi, now it's a jihadist wonderland over there... If we were to get rid of Assad it would be a jihadist wonderland in Syria. It's now a jihadist wonderland in Iraq, precisely because we got over-involved…. You have to ask yourself, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves? I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

And here's grumblin' Dick Cheney:

“Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist. He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world. I think it's absolutely essential.”

Two things stand out about this. One, Rand Paul's right. It's not clear how to deal with issues in the Middle East, but military interventionism has again and again proved to be exactly as effective as repairing fine china with a hammer.

But also, props have to be handed out to the Republicans for actually having a healthy debate with two clear, unequivocal sides. Democrats don't do that anymore. Even though Obama clearly sides more with Paul, he's shy about articulating it as clearly. Plus, he did do a massive surge into Afghanistan and tipped the scales by sticking “just the tip” into Libya.  

No, Democrats instead try to play the game the way Republicans used to – arguing for peace and freedom but also pleasing the douchebag demographic by bragging about our strength and rattling our sabers and striking from the air. But while Democrats are out there proving that they’re not pussies, Republicans, for once, are the ones having a real dialogue.